John J. Cummings, III v. Capitol Properties, LLC

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 15-839

JOHN J. CUMMINGS, III

VERSUS

CAPITOL PROPERTIES, LLC

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF SABINE, NO. 33675
HONORABLE STEPHEN B. BEASLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Judges John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and D. Kent Savoie.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL GRANTED.

Johnny E. Dollar
Dollar Law Firm, LLC
Post Office Box 14310
Monroe, LA 71207-4310
(318) 837-9000
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Capitol Properties, LLC

Tyler J. Rench
Jones, Walker, LLP
201 St. Charles Avenue
Suite 5100
New Orleans, LA 70170
(504) 582-8336
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
John J. Cummings, III

SAVOIE, Judge.

The defendant-appellant, Capitol Properties, Inc. (Capitol), moves to dismiss

its own appeal following this court’s issuance of a rule to show cause why the

appeal should not be dismissed. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss

the appeal is granted.

On May 18, 2015, the trial court signed a judgment that granted the

exception of no cause of action filed by the plaintiff, John J. Cummings, III

(Cummings). The judgment granted Capitol an opportunity to amend its pleadings

to properly state a cause of action for fraud. Without first amending its pleadings,

Capitol sought an ex parte order certifying that the May 18 judgment was a final

judgment. On July 15, 2015, that order was signed by the trial court, and Capitol

appealed.

This court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be

dismissed as having been taken from an interlocutory judgment that is not subject

to being designated as final pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915. See La.Code Civ.

P. arts. 934 and 2162; and Charles v. Jeff Davis Met-La Head Start, 525 So.2d

1277 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1988).

Following this issuance of this rule, Capitol filed a motion to dismiss its own

appeal, recognizing that the May 18, 2015 judgment was an interlocutory judgment

not subject to certification as final. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal is

granted.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL GRANTED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.